12-17668 #104

8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

1/9

Case No . 12-17668

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BEVERLY SEVCIK, et al. ,

Plaint iffs-Appellan ts

v.

GOVERNOR BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al.,

efendants -Appellees and

COAL IT I ON FOR THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE,

Intervenor -Defenda nt-Appellee.

On Appea l fr om the Un i ted States Di s t rict CourtFor the District of Nevada

Case No. 2:12 -CV -00578-RCJ-PALThe Honorable Robert C. Jones, District Jud ge

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIMETO FILE RESPONSE BRIEFS and SUPPORTING DECLARATION

Monte Neil StewartStewart Taylor MorrisPLLC12550 W. Explorer Drive,Suite 100Boise, ID 83713Tel: (208) 345-3333For Coalition for theProtection of Marriage

Cather ine Cortez MastoAttorney GeneralC. Wayne HowleSolicitor General100 North Carson StreetCa1son City, NV 89701Tel: (775) 684 1227For Governor Sandoval

Neil A. RombardoDi strict AttorneyRand al R MunnChi ef Deputy District A tty885 E. Musser StreetSuite 2030Carson City, NV 89701Tel: (775) 887-2010For Clerk- Re corder Glover

Case: 12-17668 12/04/2013 ID: 8888706 DktEntry: 104 Page: 1 of 9

8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

2/9

8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

3/9

PROCEDUR L B CKGROUND

Plaintiffs-Appellants filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District o f Nevada on

AprillO, 2012, seeking a declaration that their exclusion from marriage based on their sexual

orientation and their sex violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs-Appellants sought t

permanently enjoin Defendants-Appellees Govemor Brian Sandoval and three county clerks, all

named in their official capacity, from denying same-sex couples (i) access to marriage, or (ii) for

those couples who validly have married in another jurisdiction, recognition of their marriages.

The Coalition for the Protection o f Marriage, a Nevada advocacy group that campaigned for the

passage ofNevada s state constitutional amendment preserving Nevada s definition o f marriage ,

was permitted to intervene as a Defendant-Intervenor.

On November 26, 2012, the District Court granted in part a motion to dismiss, granted

summary judgment for Defendants, and denied Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, thus

upholding Nevada s marriage laws defining marriage . Plaintiffs-Appellants noticed this appeal

on December 3, 2012.

This case reached this Court in a posture similar to and at about the same time as the

Hawai i same-sex marriage case, Jackson v Abercrombie No. 12-16995. Plaintiffs-Appellants

filed a motion on December 11, 2012, asking the Court to (1) assign this case and Jackson to the

same merits panel and se t them for argument on the same day; (2) conform briefmg in this case

to the schedule in Jackson; and (3) deem any amicus brief filed in either case as having been

filed in both. (Dkt. 7.) On December 12, 2012, the Clerk issued an order construing Plaintiffs

Appellants request as a motion to assign this case and Jackson to the same merits panel. (Dkt.

8.) On January 7, 2013, the Clerk granted Plaintiffs-Appellants motion to have the cases heard

before the same merits panel. (Dkt. 11.) Based on the Supreme Court s grant o f certiorari n

3


8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

4/9

United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), and Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S.Ct. 2652

(20 13), the Clerk stayed both this case and Jackson Wltil April 1 2013, and set the due date for

opening briefs for May 1, 2013. (Dkt. 11.) On January 24 2013 the Clerk issued an order

providing that amicus curiae briefs could be filed jointly in both cases. (Dkt. 12.)

A party in Jackson renewed its request for a stay in both Jackson and this case on March

19,2013. (Dkt. 27, No. 12-16995). The Clerk granted the request on March 26,2013, staying

both cases until July 18 2013 and setting August 19, 2013 as the due date for opening briefs.

(Dkt. 13.) On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued decisions in Windsor and Hollingsworth.

Parties in both this case and Jackson submitted streamlined 30-day extension requests for

opening briefs, and the Clerk extended the due date in both cases to September 18, 2013. (Dkt.

15; Dkt. 30, 32, No. 12-16995.)

On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiffs-Appellants in Jackson and Governor Abercrombie

moved the Court for a 30-day extension for opening briefs in both Jackson and this case. (Dkt.

33, No. 12-16995.) The request was based on the likelihood that the Hawai i legislature might

convene for a special session to consider legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry

in the state and thereby moot the appeal in Jackson. ( d. at 1, 4.) As the motion indicated, all

parties in Jackson and this case had been consulted for their positions on the request for

additional time in both cases, and no party objected. Id. at 5-6.) On August 21, 2013, the Clerk

extended the deadline for opening briefs n Jackson to October 18, 2013. (Dkt. 34, No. 12-

16995.) Plaintiffs-Appellants counsel in this case received clarification from the Clerk s Office

the same day that the extension request must be filed in this case as well and accordingly

4


8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

5/9

submitted a motion for a parallel extension of their opening brief due date to October 18, 2013.

The Clerk entered an order granting that motion. (Dkt. 18.) 1

On October 18) 2013, P l a i n t i f f s ~ p p e l l a n t sfiled their 26,500-word opening brief. (Dkt.

20-3.) By October 25,2013, seventeen amici curiae had filed briefs in their support, totaling

some 109,540 words. (Dkt 21, 22,24-32, 36-41.)

e f e n d a n t s ~Appellees made their respective streamlined requests for a 30-day extension

on November 5 and 6, 2013. (Dkt. 96, 98, 100.) The Clerk granted those (Dkt. 97, 99, 102),

resulting in the current December 18, 2013, deadline for the response briefs.

RGUMENT ND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

This case is of large public importance and, consequently, is the subject of an

extraordinarily large opening brief(26,500 words) and seventeen amicus curiae briefs totaling

109,540 words. The issues extend beyond bare issues oflegal doctrine to a wide range o f public

policies and social concerns. To adequately address the issues and arguments massively briefed

on the l a i n t i f f s ~Appellants' side, the Defendants -Appe llees need more time. The additional

time is warranted because, in a case of this nature, the response briefs should be built on a careful

analysis of the wide range of mportant arguments advanced by the other side, and this Court will

be much better served i f the response briefs are of that nature.

In this context, we note three important facts. One, the Defendant s-Appellees' briefing

time was adversely impacted by the Thanksgiving holiday and will be adversely impacted by the

onset of the December holidays. Two, even with the requested extension, there will still be a

Because of new Hawai'i legislation, the Clerk of his Court on November 26,2013, entered an

order giving the ackson appellants 2 days to move for voluntary dismissal ... or show causewhy [the appeal] should not be dismissed for lack of urisdiction, i.e. , because of mootness.(Dkt. 117.)

5


8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

6/9

large disparity in the brief-writing time made available to each side; the time from the filing of

the docketing statement until the filing o f the opening brief and the supporting amicus curiae

briefs was more than ten months, while the time from the filing of the opening brief to the

requested January 17, 2014 , filing deadline for the response briefs is three months . Three, as

detailed in the next section, Plaintiffs-Appellants do not object to the requested extension.

OPPOSING COUNSEL S POSITION

On Monday, December 2 2013, the Coalition's counsel (Mr. Stewart) spoke by

telephone with the Plaintiffs-Appellants' counsel (Ms. Borelli) and requested her clients'

position on the propo sed extension o f time. By e-mail on Tuesday, December 3 , 2013, Ms.

Borelli responded: Plaintiffs consent to defendants' request for 30 additional days to file their

answering briefs, on the understanding that defendants will not seek any further extension for

their answering briefs absent exigent circumstances.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant s-Appellees respectfully request that this Court

grant them 30 additional days to file their response briefs, up to and including Friday, January

17, 2014.

DATE: December 4, 2013

Monte Neil StewartStewart Taylor MorrisPLLC

12550 W Explorer Drive,Suite 100Boise, ID 83713Tel: (208) 345-3333For Coalition for theProtection of Marriage

Respectfully submitted ,

Catherine Cor tez MastoAttorney GeneralC Wayne HowleSolicitor General100 North Carson StreetCarson City, NV 89701Tel: (775) 684-1227For Governor BrianSandoval

6

Neil A. RombardoDistrict AttorneyRandal R MunnChief Deputy DistrictAttorney885 E. Musser Stleet,Suite 2030Carson City, NV 89701Tel: (775) 887-2010For lan Glover CarsonCity Clerk-Recorder


8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

7/9

DECL R TION OF MONTE NEIL STEW RT

I. Monte Neil Stewart, testify under penalty of perjury and of my own personal

knowledge that:

1 I am a lawyer admitted to practice before this Court and the courts of the states of

California, Nevada , Idaho, and Utah; a member of the Boise, Idaho law firm of Stewart

Taylor Morris PLLC; and lead counsel for Defendant-Appellee Coalition for the

Protection of Marriage. I provide this Declaration in support of the joint motion of all

Defendants-Appellees for n extension of time for the filing of the response briefs.

2. By consultation among defense counsel (Mr. Howle for Governor Sandoval, Mr. Munn

for Clerk-Recorder Glover, and me), we have determined a pressing need for an

additional 30 days for the preparation and filing of the response briefs, that is, until

January 17, 2014. This need arises from the realities that:

a. This case is of large public importance and, consequently, is the subject of an

extraordinarily large opening brief (26,500 words) and seventeen amicus curiae

briefs totaling 109,540 words. The issues extend beyond bare issues of legal

doctrine to a wide range of public policies and social concerns. To adequately

address the issues and arguments massively briefed on the Plaintiffs-Appellants

side, the Defendants-Appellees need more time. We believe that additional time

is warranted because, in a case o f this nature, the response briefs should be built

on a careful analysis of the wide range of mportant arguments advanced by the

other side, and, again in our view, this Court will be much better served if the

response briefs are of that nature.


8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

8/9

b. The Defendants-Appellees' briefing time was adversely impacted by the

Thanksgiving holiday and will be adversely impacted by the onset of the

December holidays.

3. On Monday, December 2, 2013, I spoke y telephone with the Plaintiffs-Appellants'

counsel (Tara Borelli) and requested her clients' position on the proposed extension of

time. By e-mail on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Ms. Borelli responded: Plaintiffs

consent to defendants' request for 30 additional days to file their answering briefs, on the

understanding that defendants will not seek any further extension for their answering

briefs absent exigent circwnstances.

Date: December 4 2013

Monte Neil Stewart


8/13/2019 12-17668 #104

9/9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk o f he Court for the

United States Court o f Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CMIECF system on

Decemb er 4 2013.

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate

CM/ECF system.

s Monte N. Stewart


12-17668 #104

Documents

Transcript of 12-17668 #104